Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 26 Mar 1958

Vol. 166 No. 8

Private Members' Business. - Increased Social Welfare Benefits—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
"That in view of the great hardships which the high cost of living imposes on the unemployed, old age pensioners, the sick, and widows, Dáil Éireann is of opinion that all Social Welfare benefits should be increased." (Deputy J. Murphy.)

I have not a great deal to say on this motion because, to use a hackeneyed phrase, the motion speaks for itself. I want, however, to add some little to what I said on the 5th March when the debate was adjourned. The Minister interjected at one stage and asked: Does the Deputy remember his speech on the 1952 Budget? I assume he was referring to my observations on the increase in the price of cigarettes and tobacco in that Budget. I want to clear the Minister's mind now because my remarks on that particular occasion were critical of the fact that the Government allowed the price of tobacco and cigarettes to be increased to such an extent that practically £1,000,000 was put into the pockets of the tobacco manufacturers.

In this debate, when I spoke about the tax on cigarettes, I made it quite clear that the Labour Party would consider supporting a tax on commodities such as those on the clear understanding that the money so gathered would be devoted to the relief of the people mentioned in this motion—the old-age pensioners, those in receipt of unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit and contributory and non-contributory widows' and orphans' pensions. In the course of my remarks on the last occasion I mentioned—the Parliamentary Secretary may correct me—that some £500,000 would provide an increase of approximately 5/- per week to those in receipt of unemployment assistance and of widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. I think that could be done. Mark you, I know how reluctant Governments and Ministers for Finance are to hand out money for what are now described as non-productive investments.

It is true that money devoted to agriculture, industry and afforestation, is productive and brings wealth to the nation, but that does not necessarily mean that we should abandon entirely those who are no longer in a position to add their quota to increased production and to those who are absolutely dependent on the State. No matter from what angle we look at it, whilst we have many very excellent charities, the fact is that these are not in a position to cater for all those who have no income. The St. Vincent de Paul Society, and other charitable organisations, do a tremendous amount of work but people are now inclined, and rightly so, to look to the State to a large extent for certain types of assistance. What struck me in the last few days, especially yesterday, was the fact that we were able to get money for certain things when we are put to it, so to speak.

Yesterday we considered here a Supplementary Estimate for £500,000. Mark you, that £500,000 would do a substantial amount of good to those on unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions. The Dáil yesterday agreed to provide £500,000 to offset the loss on the sale of wheat. I venture to prophesy—I should like my prophecy to prove inaccurate—that the Government will say to-night that we cannot provide £500,000 to come to the aid of the people mentioned in this motion. Because the farmers overproduced, the taxpayer has to pay. I had no quarrel with the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he announced that to the House yesterday, but here we are confronted with people who are expected to live on a miserable pittance and we say that the country cannot afford any more.

I have an appreciation of the difficulties of Government when it comes to raising money. It cannot be said of these people that they received any increases in recent years. As far as unemployment assistance is concerned, it is a long time since recipients received any worth-while increase. They received 1/- per week to offset the increase in the cost of living consequent upon the budgetary provisions of last year. Yet, yesterday we could produce £500,000 to offset the losses on the enforced sale of surplus wheat.

Again, this year, we find in the Book of Estimates that we are in a position to increase the amount provided for the Department of Defence. True, it is not a large sum. It amounts to something like £37,000. There, we are confronted with a situation in which we are asked to provide more money to intern young men in the Curragh and, because we have to do it, we provide the money.

We want to give more encouragement to the agricultural industry in relation to marketing and other things and, therefore, the Government this year is providing something like £2,750,000 for agriculture. Granted that may be a good investment since the purpose is to increase production, but it is no excuse to offer for our neglect of certain people dependent upon the State for their weekly income. These people are in a far worse position to-day than they were five or six years ago. The economy drive which has been in force over the past two or three years has gone a little bit too far in my opinion in relation to certain sections of the community.

The Parliamentary Secretary may say that local authorities have a responsibility for these people, and I entirely agree with him in that. If the State is not doing its duty by these people, certainly the local authorities are not doing theirs because all the evidence is—and this has been brought home to us very forcibly in the last few weeks and even this week—that the local authorities, in order to reduce the rates or maintain them at their present level make the first cut in things like home assistance, disabled persons' maintenance allowances and certain other cash allowances arising under the Assistance Acts and the Health Act of 1953. It is pretty difficult now for certain people to get the assistance they deserve and need from local authorities. These people must produce certificates to say they are incapable of work. The allowance made to them is very, very meagre indeed. I was in the Department of Social Welfare for a number of years and nobody knows as well as I do the difficulty the Minister has in trying to extract money from the Minister for Finance and from the Government. I would urge the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary to make an effort on this occasion to come to the relief, at least to some extent, of the people mentioned in the motion.

If we feel that if we must provide something like £500,000 for losses on the sale of wheat and if we ask the taxpayers to provide more money, I submit we also have a duty to those people who need State assistance. We should ensure that in this Budget they will receive something to compensate for the undoubted increase in the cost of living over the last five or six years.

Are we going to hear anything from the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister on this motion?

I can speak when I choose.

Do the Government intend to contribute to this discussion? I think it is unfair to the House that we should be asked to vote on it without hearing the Government's viewpoint.

We prefer to talk about transatlantic planes and greyhounds rather than people on the dole and widows and orphans.

The attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary on this motion is extraordinary. On a motion such as this the House should get a lead from the responsible Minister. Certainly, having the Parliamentary Secretary maintain a dumb silence on such an important motion is a very strange attitude on the part of the Government. It deserves condemnation. It almost amounts to contempt of the House. Every Deputy has the right to table any motion he thinks fit, whether it be wise, foolish or otherwise.

We never denied the right to debate any motion.

The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has refused to speak on the motion is treating the House and the subject involved with contempt. If this were a frivolous motion, I could understand his attitude. I hope we will hear the Minister, because Ministers have the advantage of statistics which the ordinary Deputy has not. They are in touch with the Department of Finance. It is very easy for a Deputy to look for money, but I know the job of the Minister for Finance might not be a very nice one.

I support this motion because I believe the old age pensioners are a very deserving section of the community. Since the removal of the food subsidies, they have felt the pinch very much. The one shilling insult given to offset the increase in the cost of living was merely a joke. But it was rather a bitter joke for those at the receiving end. I know several old age pensioners who have nothing to fall back on, and who have to try to make ends meet from Saturday to Saturday on the few shillings old age pension they receive.

The time has come when that particular section should get a decent increase. One of the so-called badges of civilisation is a democracy taking care of the helpless sections of the community. We must regard the aged, no longer unable to provide for themselves, and the very young as the helpless sections of the community. They deserve first attention.

One thing that has puzzled everybody is that every Government seems to have plenty of money for other purposes. The last speaker mentioned the £1,000,000 for runways. We are definitely treating the poorer sections of the people badly, and the part of the motion dealing with that is deserving of the support of every Deputy.

I shall not adopt the attitude that a Government should shovel out money whether they have it or not. The Government can only depend for money on taxation. Having been a Minister myself for a few years, I know the difficulty of finding money for good projects. The Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister might give us a scale of what 1/- per pension, 2/- per pension, 2/6 and 5/- would mean. The Government might get some useful assistance from Deputies to show where economies could be effected in some directions so that worth-while matters such as this could be given attention.

I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he has statistics available showing the number of old age pensioners here who are destitute or near-destitute? With the present cost of living since the removal of the food subsidies, there are plenty of old age pensioners on the brink of destitution, and not having the wherewithal to provide themselves with food. Such projects as the £1,000,000 for runways could wait until we have dealt decently with the section of the community I am referring to. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give the House the benefit of his advice.

I want to refer to one of the classes mentioned in this motion—the recipients of unemployment assistance. I listened carefully to the contribution of Deputy Corish, the ex-Minister for Social Welfare. He supported the motion advocating increases for the type of recipient I mentioned. It was amusing to hear him speak in the manner he did, having regard to the fact that, in 1955-56, when he was Minister, there was an all-out blitz, not to increase the payments made, but to reduce the number in receipt of them.

I want to refer to a section of those recipients whose cases were reviewed in 1955-56 and who, as a result of that investigation, had their payments disallowed. The class I want to draw attention to is that of married sons living on their fathers' farms. I am referring to farms of very small valuation in the congested areas. In cases that were investigated, some married sons with families living on those small holdings, who sometimes were able to get work with the county councils or on other public schemes in the area, but who when those works were finished, having exhausted whatever small unemployment benefits they got, had to rely on unemployment assistance, were cut off because a new system was adopted whereby they were supposed to get so much benefit from the farm, not which they owned, but on which they lived. The same applied to nephews living with uncles and to sons-in-law who were living on a small holding. That class were all cut off as a result of the blitz to which I referred. These people find that there is no work available. They are not the owners of the land but they all have got the hammer inside the last two or three years.

What does the Deputy think should be done about it now in relation to this motion?

I am suggesting that it would be much better to have that action of the previous Minister made known——

That is wrong. Do not be talking nonsense.

——than for the same Minister to come in here and advocate that increases should be given to a reduced number of unemployment assistance recipients.

You have the ball at your feet now.

It is nonsense anyhow. There was no blitz.

I will be very brief on this matter. One matter to which I should like to refer is the fact that Deputies are at the moment being inundated with letters from constituents whose claims for unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit are being held up by investigation officers. Deputy Cunningham is just as well aware of this as I am. We are being inundated and the Parliamentary Secretary has been inundated. I should like to compliment him on the manner in which he is replying to the various queries that are being put to him, as to his predecessor.

That is more than I can say.

It is a fact that there is some hold up some place or other and I should like to see that blockage cleared. As Deputy Cunningham pointed out, unfortunate applicants for unemployment assistance at the moment are held for weeks and weeks before they are paid the arrears due to them. This may not be appropriate to the motion but it is certainly appropriate to the discussion which has arisen out of the motion. I should also like the Parliamentary Secretary to look into the fact that where an applicant is an applicant for unemployment benefit and there is some delay in investigating his case, pending the payment of benefit, assistance should be paid forthwith to the applicant.

That is done.

Unfortunately, it is not done. It is only done when it is brought to the personal notice of the Parliamentary Secretary.

This is throwing the motion wide open in respect of administration.

All we want is the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to speak.

I know the Minister is very anxious to get in and I certainly shall not stand in his way.

I shall give way to the Parliamentary Secretary.

This situation is preposterous. It is now 9.25. We understand that the motion is to finish at 10.30. Deputy McQuillan intimated when seconding the motion that he intended to reserve his right to speak. We assume, therefore, that the Government will afford Deputy McQuillan time to reply. The time is now advancing and the House awaits from the Government a statement as to what they think of this motion. It is treating the House with contempt that neither the Minister nor the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated his desire to contribute to the discussion.

We propose to reserve to ourselves the right that Deputy McQuillan has reserved to himself.

I shall call on the mover to conclude. I must bring the debate to a conclusion.

Before that is done, if you call on the proposer to conclude, does that convenience Deputy MacEntee by cutting him out?

I need not tell him to conclude, if he has to conclude.

Does the Minister intend intervening in this discussion?

I prefer to listen. I have come to learn.

We want to get some kind of lead or guidance or policy from the Government.

You certainly do.

We are getting none.

I do not accept that Deputy Cunningham is talking for the Government.

This conversation must come to an end. Deputy Murphy, concluding.

No, Sir. I wish to contribute.

Here is the shy and bashful Deputy O'Sullivan coming up.

This is a preposterous situation. The debate is now running into its second night and the Government have had time enough to look up all the matters relating to the motion. It has been customary for a Government to intervene early in debates such as this so as to give the House the advantage of the information that they alone have but on this occasion the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are sitting patiently, as mute as mice. The Minister for Social Welfare and Health is adept at using that phrase but to-night he is as mute as a mouse, although he can be pretty vocal when he feels like it. On this occasion he does not feel like it. The Parliamentary Secretary, Deputy Kennedy, who is responsible for Social Welfare, sat in very patiently through the debate, but he also is not sufficiently interested and does not feel that there is any obligation or responsibility on him to intervene to say that the Government think that this is a good motion and are prepared to accept it or that they think it is a preposterous motion and propose to oppose it. If they had done that and had given their reasons, Deputies would be in a position to give their opinions in relation to the motion.

This is a habit that has grown up since the election of this Government. It is represented as a strong Government, being in no way shackled by considerations other than what would influence a strong single-Party Government. One would think that they would come out in a forthright fashion in presenting Estimates or on the occasion of motions such as this with something positive, which would give a lead to the House.

On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I want to say that, much as we sympathise with certain sections who are grievously hit at the present moment, we cannot feel that we can vote for this motion as it is worded. We think it is too widely-flung in encompassing all classes, as indicated in the motion. I wish to emphasise that we feel there are certain classes, particularly recipients of old-age pensions or blind pensions, widows and orphans, who are in a serious position now in consequence of the Government's financial policy, in consequence of the budgetary policy which took away the food subsidies with more direct effect on these classes than any other class. We feel, and we have said so, and will repeat, that the effort made to compensate those classes for the abolition of the food subsidies was insufficient.

Of late, in relation to every proposal to expend the taxpayers' money, we found every Deputy on the Government side referring to the fact that there is a limit on what can be provided by the Exchequer, that taxation has reached a certain point. The first Deputy to speak on the Government side, in fact the only one until Deputy Cunningham briefly intervened to-night, was Deputy Loughman, and I commend him on his courage in intervening at all in view of the encouragement he got from his front bench——

Lack of encouragement.

Deputy Loughman referred no less than four times to the limitations there are on what the taxpayers and the Government can provide in the way of assistance. We hear this on every occasion. Surely those Deputies, when they took the deliberate action of taking away the food subsidies must have known the effect it would have on these unfortunate individuals. This is the time of year when the members of the Government are preparing for the presentation of the annual Budget. We are adjourning this week for the Easter recess: when we return the Budget will be imminent. Therefore, the Minister for health and Social Welfare is quite well aware, as are the other members of the Government because it is foremost in their deliberations at the moment, whether revenue is coming in at a rate which would make it permissible for them to meet the urgent demands of the classes so widely embraced in this motion.

There is a genuine sense of grievous distress among certain recipients of social welfare benefits. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare highlighted the position in a statement he made to the effect that there were gross abuses in relation to certain benefits. He was speaking with authority and was hearkened to with considerable attention and the feeling throughout the country was: "we can see certain abuses; we feel they exist, but now we have the parliamentary Secretary responsible for the Department saying these abuses exist and that they are numerous and grievous." He back-pedalled in the House to some extent later on that point, but if these abuses exist he is the man who could correct the situation and who by wiping out those abuses could meet the more genuine cases more liberally, if, as he says, there is a great disparity between the genuine recipient of a benefit and a person abusing it. Surely then, without making the charge on the recipient that Deputy Loughman was so cautious and concerned about, wothout making the demand on the taxpayer involved in what Deputy Kyne so constructively advanced, that he and his Party would undertake deliberate taxation to meet the impact on the Exchequer of giving compensatory benefits to offset the bad effects of last year's Budget, something could be done by the Government?

The Government must now realise what they can do in this respect, and they are mute of malice in giving no indication of what they are in a position to do. We do not know, of course, but that before 10 o'clock the Parliamentary Secretary may stand up and say that it has been sought by all the Deputies, by every resolution passed by every Fianna Fáil cumann, by every letter written, by every resolution passed by various bodies interested in the welfare of the unfortunate sections of the community needing these benefits, that they should get some increase in their benefits to counter the savage impact of the dramatic increase in the cost of living which was only to be expected when the Fianna Fáil Party gained control.

It must be said that these recipients affected by the increased cost of living were warned in good time that should Fianna Fáil be elected what has happened, would happen. The Labour Leader, Deputy Norton, on several occasions during the general election campaign said he was convinced that if Fianna Fáil got into office the cost of living would be increased, as indeed it was. The Government has tried to say the benefits were abequate; we all know they were inadequate and the Government must face the responsibility for the consequences of the policy laid down in the last Budget.

On this side of the House we have always held the view, and supported with deliberate action, that these classes of the community should be the first charge on us because they are people incapable of looking after themselves and it was in that atmosphere exactly 11 years ago that the late Dr. T.F. O'Higgins and Deputy J.A. Costello tabled a motion here—at a time when the old age pensioners were receiving 10/- a week and were being required to go to the local relieving officer and prove themselves to be paupers in order to qualify for another 2/6—asking that £250,000 be given to permit the payment to old age pensioners of an extra 5/- a week. That was refused because then as now we had a single Party in office with a large majority, but within 12 months, following the election of the inter-Party Government in 1948, that pension was increased and the classes concerned were regarded as having first claim on the Exchequer. The country afforded it then. Since that other classes in the community have brought up their standards of living.

In concluding I would like to say that there are at least five minutes left and perhaps Deputy McQuillan would co-operate with the Minister if the Minister now expresses a wish to intervene even at this late hour and give us and the country the Government's view in relation to this motion.

The Fine Gael Party is not supporting this motion as a party because we think the motion as phrased is too sweeping and too wide in the way it is set out. There is expected from the Government in these weeks an appreciation of the grievous difficulties under which so many sections of the community are trying to exist. These difficulties have arisen in direct consequence of Government policy and therefore, the Government must bear responsibility for that. Since these people are suffering because of the deliberate policy of the Government, the Government must be more aware of it, than if these difficulties had arisen outside the orbit of Government responsibility. However, they were warned what the consequences of their actions would be and there is no excuse. There is no justification for the attitude of the Minister and the parliamentary Secretary in sitting dumb of malice, as mute as mice, not prepared to say what is the exact situation or what they think in relation to this motion. The two backbenchers who have spoken on the Government side, while expressing certain of these people, have not said what their Party intends to do or what they will do as Deputies in relation to this motion. We are waiting for the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary, even at this late hour, to give the information he should have given when this matter was first introduced into the House.

We are not opposing this motion, because we realise it is being brought home forcibly to all of us that there are certain recipients of Social welfare benefits who are in distress and in dire need in consequence of the increase in the cost of living. It must be foremost in the Government's mind, in any proposals which they must be well advanced in preparing, to do something in the forthcoming Budget to meet the needs of the more needy sections who are recipients of public assistance and who because of old age or infirmity must be looked after to the greatest extent that the State can afford. That is our policy in relation to this motion and we still await, not quite hopelessly, a speech from the Minister for Health and Social Welfare or his Parliamentary Secretary which will indicate just what the Government thinks on this question.

I would like to ask one question.

Do not let us lose the opportunity now that we have the Parliamentary Secretary on his feet.

it is question to the Deputy's side I want to put. Does the Fine Gael Party think that the unemployed man has enough?

I did not say that.

The Deputy is out of order.

Is it the Deputy's opinion that the unemployed man with a family has enough in 41/- a week or should he get an increase?

Deputy Sherwin is out of order.

I referred to the unemployed quite definitely.

Bhíos ag éisteacht leis an díospóireacht seo ar fad agus níor chualas aon trácht ar an gcaoi inar féidir an t-airgead d'fháil i gcóir gach moladh atá déanta ag na Teachtaí chun níos mó seirbhísí a thabhairt do na daoine atá á lorg.

Níl sé sin ceart, agus tá a fhios sin ag an Rúnaí Parlaiminte.

Rinne an Teachta Breandáin Mac Fheorais agus an Teachta Ó Caidhin tágairt dó ach níor chualas a leithéid ó aon Teachta eile, ón duine a mhol an rún nó ó aon duine eile a labhair ar son an rúin. Ní ouirtear aon scéim roimh an Dáil chun an t-airgead d'fháil. Is féidir moladh de gach saghas a dhéanamh chun níos mó airgead a thabhairt do gach duine. Ní mínítear conas is féidir íoc as na scéimeanna úd.

That is not true.

Tá sé sin fíor. Is léir go bhfuil an Dochtúir de Brún in a namhad don Ghaeilge. Is léir é sin i gcónaí.

What the Parliamentary Secretary says is not true. I made two separate suggestions.

Deputy Dr. Browne must cease interrupting.

The Parliamentary Secretary is being dishonest.

Nuair a bhí an Bille um Leasa Shóisialaigh ós comhair na Dála a thug níos mó airgead do dhaoine áirithe dubhras an méid seo:

"I have no doubt that this Social Welfare Bill, like every other similar Bill introduced in this House, will be criticised on the grounds that the increases proposed are not enough. I may say that nothing would give me more pleasure than to bring in a Bill providing for greater increases but, unfortunately, we cannot do more than the reserves of the Exchequer permit. As the Minister for Finance indicated in his Budget speech, the increases proposed represent the limit to which the State can go in the present difficult economic circumstances."

That is the position and the cost of social welfare to the State represents a considerable amount of the national income. Last year it represented 6.6 per cent. and this year it represents 7.25 per cent. of the national income, or to give it in figures—and I am only dealing with our own Department, the Department of Social Welfare—the cost of these services was £29,500,000 last year and this year, with the Supplementary Estimate put in, they are costing £32,500,000. That is only for the social services administered by the Department of Social Welfare. If you add to them the cost of health services you have another £16,000,000, and you have a totoal expenditure of £48,000,000 on the social services. I cannot give statistical figures at the moment but I stand over this statement, that the cost of social services in proportion to our income in the State is greater than that of most countries in Europe. In England it is a negligible proportion of the national income, a highly industrialised country. Here our main source of income is agriculture. The cost of taxation is very heavy on the community and the proportion of that which is given to social services is very high indeed. In the whole debate here, there was no single suggestion with the exception of those from Deputy Corish and Deputy Kyne, as to how we were to get the money. Deputy Corish dealt with the figure, and he was modest in his assumption, of the cost of 1/- a week on old age pensions. He said it would be about £500,000.

I said that the cost of widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions and of unemployment assistance would be about that figure.

taking the three which I have mentioned, old age pensions, unemployment assistance and widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, the increase of 1/- a week would cost £660,000. An increase of 1/- a week on childern's allowances would cost £1,634,000 so that the cost of adding 1/- a week all around to the present rate of benefits would be £2,718,000.

You got back £7,500,000.

I am talking about what the additional 1/- a week would cost.

I am talking about what you took off.

We gave it back. Another matter which I wish to refer to is that, in dealing with old age pensions, the sum involved for the present financial year is £10,400,000. The number of persons over 70 years of age in receipt of old age pensions is 78.5 per cent. of the total and the proportion ten years ago was 70.5 per cent.

That is not much to be boasting about.

What proportion of that number is in receipt of the whole old age pension?

I could not reply to that. Much play has been made about the 1/- a week increase and the little that it would amount to. The ordinary unemployed family, averaging four, as a result of an increase of 1/- a week, receives 6/4 a week, when you take into account unemployment assistance and children's allowances. I am not contending that that is sufficient but those who have contributed to the debate and stated that all it would mean to a family is another 1/- a week will find that these figures contradict them.

Most people realise that we are a country of small farmers. Sixty per cent. of our people live on valuations of £20 and under. When we hear Deputy Murphy and Deputy Sherwin making the hard case for the Dubliner we feel that we could make an equally hard case for the people in our own constituencies—for the people in Connemara, in Donegal or in the peninsula in Kerry, who are on the 5/- valuation. We can find as hard cases in our own constituencies as there are in Dublin but we are endeavouring to relate the benefits we give to the capacity of the community to bear that expense.

I live in a village of 650 people and I see no very wealthy people there. There are hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of such villages all over the country. If I go into Mullingar I do not see any great wealth there and I know the standard of living of the people there. Whilst we would like the Government to meet all these calls, we have to bear in mind what the Government can extract from the people without wrecking the social structure, without wrecking the right to own private property and the right to private enterprise.

Did the Parliamentary Secretary over hear of the democratic programme?

We have always stood for that democratic programme.

That contradicts what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said.

Deputy Murphy made certain points and spoke of old age pensioners who are living alone. I know their case is pitiable but I contend that they are not the majority of old age pensioners. I contend that the majority of old age pensioners live with their families. The old age pension was never given as a living wage. It was given as a grant-in-aid and that is all we regard it as. That is how we regard the payment of unemployment assistance.

In the course of Deputy Sherwin's contribution, he compared the £12 per week that recipients get in England with the maximum amount a married unemployed man can get here. Surely the comparison is not a correct one? Is it contended that the unemployed man is perpetually in receipt of unemployment assistance supplemented by home assistance? If so, I would be inclined strongly to recommend to the Minister an examination of the register to see who are the unemployed people and who are the unemployable people. It would be quite good national policy to make a segregation and not have them down as unemployed when they are unemployable.

The man who may be in receipt of assistance to-day will probably be working on some bog in a week's time. They are not always in receipt of unemployment assistance. It does not represent the weekly income to the home in any sense of the word. Listening to the debate, and having observed the operation of social welfare for some time, I am strongly of the mind to recommend to the Minister to make a new segregation of those who are really seeking work—and there are the great majority—and those who are unemployable and in receipt of unemployment assistance all the time.

They can only be deemed to be sick if they are non-employable.

In the course of the suggestions made for economy, Deputy Sherwin spoke about the cost of the Army. There is a barracks in my constituency and the weekly wage bill there is £1,5000 per week. Is it suggested that that barracks should be closed?

Is that not the suggestion made by the Bishop——

Is the Deputy following the bishops now?

There are hundreds of barracks all over the country costing money.

Deputy McQuillan will get an opportunity of making his own speech and he must not interrupt.

I am trying to be helpful.

Is it contended that that barracks should be closed down and that the resultant saving should be devoted to social welfare? In that barracks men are being trained in the defence of the country. They are rearing families. they are in receipt of a substantial wage. Yet, the economy suggested is that that barracks should be closed down, the men should be dispersed and the money thrown into a pool. Remember, that suggestion would mean throwing these men on the labour market. That was one of the contributions to this debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary is picking one barracks in his own constituency. what about all the barracks in the city here?

To my mind there are not enough soldiers at all.

I am sure the upkeep and maintenance of these barracks costs at least £500,000.

Emigration is bad enough. I do not want to ship these men out of the country and end their careers in the Army.

The Parliamentary Secretary shoved a good few out in the last 30 years.

It is the duty of local authorities to come to the help of old age pensioners living alone and the local authorities supply these people with fuel at a nominal sum. I think it is sixpence per cwt. for turf. The same applies to those in receipt of unemployment assistance. I am not saying that the beneficiaries of unemployment assistance have all the things we would like them to have but no mention was made in this debate by Deputy Sherwin of the free milk for children up to five years of age, boots for a nominal sum and school meals. These things were not taken into account. The picture is not as black in Dublin City as the Deputy painted it.

The Parliamentary Secretary is dealing with a small section. Let him deal with the general run and he will get a better picture. What about the poor old age pensioner who lives on his own?

Deputy Sherwin has already spoken and he should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to make his speech.

There are 1,600 with no means except their pensions, and the Parliamentary Secretary knows that.

The Deputy has disturbed me in a well-prepared speech and I have lost the trend.

The Parliamentary Secretary is speaking with his tongue in his check.

We have in the recent increase in unemployment assistance, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and children's allowances gone as far as the State can go in coming to the relief of the people to whom this motion refers. Deputy Corish complained about the £500,000 given to agriculture. I would answer him in this way. The growing of wheat gives substantial employment to the people he is interested in—the farm labourer and the manufacturer of farm machinery in his own constituency. This is a very desirable subsidy. Any subsidy that will help the farm labourer is desirable because it will keep him in employment.

One thing I said was that I did not complain about it. I said we were confronted with a situation in which we had to provide £500,000 for the sale of surplus wheat. That is a very different thing. I then suggested that we ought to be able to provide a similar amount to come to the rescue of these people.

If the Parliamentary Secretary can see his way to preventing the wheat rancher and the conacre farmer from operating, that subsidy will not be necessary.

Deputies are getting away from the main motion before the House, which deals with increases in social welfare benefits.

I am sorry I misinterpreted Deputy Corish. We have to make provision for the Army. We have to make those provisions which are necessary from a national point of view. Without increasing taxation, we cannot give any further benefits. The question we have to ask ourselves is: is the community able to stand up to increased taxation? Deputy Corish knows as well as I do that you get to a point in taxation where the last straw breaks the camel's back and you endeavour to get more money you get only less. It is my contention that we have reached the point here at which we cannot further increase taxation. If we want to maintain our present social services and bring down the cost of living we shall have to proceed very cautiously as far as increased taxation is concerned. We are very desirous of helping out in every way, the people referred to in this motion.

The Parliamentary Secretary needs the money for the School of Advanced Studies, does he not?

We must cut our cloth according to our measure. Deputy Dr. Browne is a theorist. He was born and reared with a silver spoon in his mouth. He was not reared, as I was, on potatoes and rough food, going barefoot to school. If he had been, he would know how the rest of the country lives and he would not be up in the clouds, full of theories, contending that the Connemara man is a kind of millionaire, instead of someone trying to eke out a miserable existence, unable to grow enough potatoes to keep himself and his family. But that is something of which we are aware and that is the situation we have to weigh.

There is none left in Connemara. They have all had to emigrate; 750,000 have emigrated.

There are plenty of people in Connemara.

They came in only in the last few years.

If Deputy Blowick can kill the Irish language, he will.

The Parliamentary Secretary is making a bad job of saving it.

Deputy Blowick did not contribute very much to the revival of the language in his time.

Deputy Blowick and his family can hold their heads high.

He comes from a county where there is a Fior-Ghaeltacht.

There is nothing in the motion about the Irish language.

And a good job. The Parliamentary Secretary is slaughtering it as hard as he can.

When is the Parliamentary secretary going to tell us something?

Where is this well-prepared speech we are waiting for?

I contributed as much as Deputy Blowick, if not more. I dealt with facts; the Deputy did not. He did not tell us how the money was to be raised. Deputy Corish and Deputy Kyne did.

That is the Government's job. Do not shirk your responsibilities in that way.

It is time I allowed the mover of the motion in.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary answer one question? What is the cost of a 1/- increase to old age pensioners?

£429,000. The cost of 1/- on unemployment assistance is £142,000, widows' and orphans' non-contributory pensions, £89,000 and children's allowances, £1,634,000.

I contend that the burden on the Exchequer is as much as this State can bear at the moment. We shall have to step up production to do better. As the financial figures come to light, it will be evident that the balancing of expenditure and receipts will be a most difficult tasks for the Minister for Finance. In these circumstances, we cannot accept the motion.

Having heard the Parliamentary Secretary on this motion, I did not think such utterances could come, even from a Front Bench member of the present Government. There is no doubt from what the Parliamentary Secretary said that the approach of the Fianna Fáil Government to this motion is in line with their callous betrayal of the workers last year by withdrawing the food subsidies.

The Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that he is thinking of advising the Government that there should be an investigation into those of our citizens who cannot find employment. For what purpose? Do the Government propose to export them physically, the way the bulk of our people have had to leave the country to find employment?

It will amount to that.

In a situation where so many growing youths have absolutely no hope of finding employment in their own country, the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that there is any significant number of what he terms unemployable is a reflection on this Government—maybe on the Governments of our country for many years— and on this House.

Since the Budget last year a considerable proportion of our people in employment have been able to obtain some compensation. Surely those sitting behind the Parliamentary Secretary are not without knowledge of the difficulties and hardships of those relying on unemployment assistance, old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and so on?

There is only one situation in which the Parliamentary Secretary and those for whom he speaks could possibly have their eyes opened. That is if they could hear the people affected by this motion, if they could go into the cities of this country and see the conditions under which those people are living and trying to provide some miserable existence for their families. Perhaps then, they might say, "We know there are difficulties, but at least we will do our best to relieve the position." But the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary will give very little comfort to those relying on social assistance.

Deputy McQuillan to conclude.

I want to make it clear I am not concluding. I said I would reserve my right to speak at a later stage. I expect you will call on the mover of the motion, Sir, who was good enough to suggest he would curtail his time to allow me make a few comments on the Parliamentary Secretary's contribution.

The Parliamentary Secretary and members of his Party who spoke, expressed sympathy with the hardships undergone by the sections of the community mentioned in this motion. In the usual manner we are so accustomed to now, they paid lip service to the sympathy they had for the unfortunate old age pensioners and so on. Their attitude of mind reminds me of the well-known statement of Dean Swift when he said he never knew a Christian who could not bear another's misfortunes perfectly like a gentleman. It is no trouble in the world to the Front Bench of the Fianna Fáil party to bear the misfortunes and troubles of the unemployed, the widows and the orphans. They can bear all those burdens from the Security and well-being of their own homes. It is the unfortunate people concerned in the motion who have to undergo the hardship involved as a result of this Government's action only 12 months ago in abolishing the food subsidies and increasing taxation.

Fianna Fáil always boasted that they were the poor man's Party but there is not the slightest doubt in the mind of the public to-day that Fianna Fáil are tied hand and foot with big business and big business interests and big ranchers, both cattle ranchers and wheat ranchers. They have lost the support of the small farming community for whom Deputy Killilea claimed to speak here a few minutes ago.

A Deputy

Nonsense!

For many years past the public, what is left of it, were foolish enough to accept at their face value various statements made by prominent members of that organisation which is now in power. There was the foolish position of Deputy Kennedy as Parliamentary Secretary coming in here to-night to tell us that he stood for private property, that he was in favour of private enterprise. That he should deal with that on the question of old age pensions shows how far from reality that unfortunate Parliamentary Secretary is. When he had finished standing up for private property in the case of the gentlemen in his own constituency who own ranches from 500 to 2,000 acres, he told us his views on the Irish language and concluded by telling us that he was reared in his bare feet and spent his life swallowing hot potatoes.

Fianna Fáil have little sympathy with the section of the community which is not organised, which has no trade union to back it, which is defenceless but which we all agree in spirit should be the first charge on the funds. It is as accepted fact that every local authority and every Department of State has shown increases in estimates for institutions, for the Army, for all sections which have the power to get an increase to offset the increase in the cost of living brought about by the Budget. The present Minister, who now refuses to aid the old age pensioners, treated with contempt the trade union movement in the city when they were able to make a strong case for an increase of 10/- to offset the increase in the cost of living but, because that trade union had power, and rightly so, they were able to force the Miniser's hand and it was admitted by the Minister, when he had to agree to an increase of 10/-, that the case existed, and that that case existed due to the Budget implications of last year. The old age pensioners who have to pay the very same increases for butter, tea, sugar and everything else, because they had nobody to speak for them and were not a pressure group, have not got any such increases. The Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary for him can say that it is the last straw that breaks the camel's back, in other words that we can afford to bow to the wishes of the organised section of the community but, if asked to give one extra shilling to the weakest section of the community, it is liable to break the camel's back.

That is the case made here to-night. That case will not wash with the people. Fianna Fáil will have to move into the Division Lobby to-night to prove my words that they are no longer the Party that looked after the interests of the small and weaker sections of the community and the small farmers but have tied themselves hand and foot with the larger and more powerful vested interests. To a large extent that is due to the fact that many members of that organisation, which started of so well, have allied themselves for the last ten or 15 years to these large business concerns.

Am I in order in intervening now?

The mover of the motion is entitled to reply.

One moment. I just want to be clear. I understood that Deputy McQuillan was not concluding.

Deputy McQuillan intimated that he was not concluding.

I understand, Sir, the mover has a right to conclude.

I see. So Deputy McQuillan is taking advantage of the fact that he cannot be answered.

The Minister got one and a half hours to speak and would not speak.

In concluding the debate on this motion, I wish to state that I am appalled at the callous indifference of the Parliamentary Secretary. Members of the Government party and many local bodies throughout the country have expressed support for this motion. The statement that there is no money to give these unfortunate people a further increase will be regarded by decent Christian people as a downright lie. I am still convinced that, with any kind of honest effort, the lot of the poorer sections of our people could be improved. The unemployed and the old age pensioners will continue to press for elementary Christian justice.

I have asked, and I now repeat my request, for a free vote of the House on this issue. I challenge the Government to allow a free vote of the House.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 62.

  • Blowick, Joseph.
  • Browne, Noel C.
  • Byrne, Tom.
  • Casey, Seán.
  • Corish, Brendan.
  • Desmond, Daniel.
  • Everett, James.
  • Kyne, Thomas A.
  • Larkin, Denis.
  • McQuillan, John.
  • Murphy, John.
  • Murphy, Michael P.
  • Russell, George E.
  • Sherwin, Frank.
  • Tierney, Patrick.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Blaney, Neal T.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Kevin.
  • Booth, Lionel.
  • Brady, Philip A.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Breslin, Cormac.
  • Browne, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Calleary, Phelim A.
  • Carty, Michael.
  • Childers, Erskine.
  • Collins, James J.
  • Cotter, Edward.
  • Cunningham, Liam
  • Davern, Mick.
  • de Valera, Eamon.
  • de Valera, Vivion.
  • Doherty. Seán.
  • Dooley. Partick.
  • Egan, Kieran P.
  • Moher, John W.
  • Moloney, Daniel J.
  • Mooney, Patrick.
  • Moran, Michael.
  • Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Malley, Donogh.
  • Egan, Nicholas.
  • Fanning, John.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Flanagan, Seán.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Galvin, John.
  • Gilbride, Eugene.
  • Gogan, Richard P.
  • Griffin, James.
  • Haughey, Charles.
  • Healy, Augustine A.
  • Hillery, Patrick J.
  • Hilliard, Michael.
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kennedy, Michael J.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kitt, Michael F.
  • Lemass, Noel T.
  • Lemass, Seán.
  • Loughman, Frank.
  • Lynch, Celia
  • MacCarthy, Seán.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Medlar, Martin.
  • Ormonde, John.
  • O'Toole James.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Sheldon, William A.W.
  • Smith, patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies John Murphy and McQuillan; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman.
Question declared lost.
Top
Share